Michael Moore 2 questions for the candidates

[jazzer]

question 2

Go get em Mike.

Edited July 23, 2007 by jazzer

[B. Max]

question 2

Go get em Mike.

Question for Moore. Who does he think is going to work for free so you can have free health care.

[jazzer]

question 2

Go get em Mike.

Question for Moore. Who does he think is going to work for free so you can have free health care.

Too bad you aren't running for office. That is a typical political response.

[bush_cheney2004]

Gee, I wish Moore would get us all 24/7 Secret Service protection and big limos too! The election is in 2008...chill out Mike.

[B. Max]

Too bad you aren't running for office. That is a typical political response.

It's a legitimate question since he is the one who said it will free.

[Riverwind]

Silly question. The president receives healthcare coverage from his employer just like most other Americans. It is not some special gift for politicians.

[question 2

Silly question 2. Moore has no business asking candidate what drugs they use or how much they spend. That is a private matter even for people seeking public office.

Moore can be his own worst enemy at times....

[jazzer]

The president receives healthcare coverage from his employer just like most other Americans. It is not some special gift for politicians.

The point made is that Sherrod Brown has paid his own coverage since 1992. Will the next President do the same?

Edited July 23, 2007 by jazzer

[bush_cheney2004]

The point made is that Sherrod Brown has paid his own coverage since 1992. Will the next President do the same?

Of course not....why should he? Seeking self financed private care would actually be a political liability (vs. Bethesda Naval Hospital).

[Riverwind]

The point made is that Sherrod Brown has paid his own coverage since 1992. Will the next President do the same?

Sherrod Brown is probably lucky enough to qualify for healthcare insurance at a reasonable rate. Anyone with a pre-existing condition - even a minor one - would find heathcare coverage extremely expensive to purchase individually and would need to be part of a group plan to make it affordable.

[Guest American Woman]

question 2

Go get em Mike.

Question for Moore. Who does he think is going to work for free so you can have free health care.

So all of citizens of the countries with universal healthcare are working for free? Seems to me we have "free" education, yet we aren't working for free, so I don't see why it would be any different with a healthcare program. So the answer to the question of free healthcare is: everyone who is working will contribute to universal healthcare. Those who are getting coverage from their employer now will be able to make more once the employer doesn't have to pay for their health coverage; so even if they are paying highter taxes, in the end it should even out. And everyone would have health coverage. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

[scribblet]

Not working 'for free' just paying higher taxes - it has to be paid for by someone - nothing is 'free'.

[B. Max]

So all of citizens of the countries with universal healthcare are working for free? Seems to me we have "free" education, yet we aren't working for free, so I don't see why it would be any different with a healthcare program. So the answer to the question of free healthcare is: everyone who is working will contribute to universal healthcare. Those who are getting coverage from their employer now will be able to make more once the employer doesn't have to pay for their health coverage; so even if they are paying highter taxes, in the end it should even out. And everyone would have health coverage. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

So are you saying it's not free and that Moore is a liar. It will not even out. It is a mathematical impossibility. It will break millions of families and limit the creation of wealth to a few.

So now we have free education. Can you tell me what teachers work for nothing.

[Guest American Woman]

So all of citizens of the countries with universal healthcare are working for free? Seems to me we have "free" education, yet we aren't working for free, so I don't see why it would be any different with a healthcare program. So the answer to the question of free healthcare is: everyone who is working will contribute to universal healthcare. Those who are getting coverage from their employer now will be able to make more once the employer doesn't have to pay for their health coverage; so even if they are paying highter taxes, in the end it should even out. And everyone would have health coverage. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

So are you saying it's not free and that Moore is a liar. It will not even out. It is a mathematical impossibility. It will break millions of families and limit the creation of wealth to a few.

So now we have free education. Can you tell me what teachers work for nothing.

No, Moore isn't a liar. One has to quit nitpicking with the terms being used and understand that by "free" he means we don't pay for healthcare as such any more than we pay for our children's education. A "free" education is guaranteed to all. But since we pay for all of these services with our taxes, it's referred to as "free" since we don't pay for the specific service. But nothing is life is free, which is why we pay taxes. And since we pay on a graduated tax scale, I don't see it breaking "millions of families" since they will no longer have to pay for health care or health insurance. If their insurance is now being provided by their employer, as I said, their employers can afford to pay them more once they no longer have to pay extravagant insurance premiums, so it should pretty much balance out in the end.

[JerrySeinfeld]

This debate is all too often coloured with bias on BOTH sides.

Americans are fed BS about how horrible socialized medicine is.

But by the same token, we are fed BS about how horrible privatized health care is.

Obviously both sides will have their merits. An ideal system would set aside ideology and try to incorporate the positive aspects of both public and private systems.

I have done some reading on the French system and, though I hate to admit it, they have made some good attempts at a hybrid system.

Moore demand for "free universal health care for all" is too ideological for an intelligent debate.

In many instances, the private sector can do things more efficiently and makes more sense by and large.

The key is to avoid having millions of people 100% uninsured or people dying because of lack of coverage.

That would probably mean some kind of last-resort coverage for the needy would make some sense. That's a far cry from 'universal care for all". We in Canada already know the demongraphic perils and costs we face in the next two decades with such a system, which is why all countries with "universal" health care have explored and adopted some kind of private non-government system to take the stress off the public system.

I believe Canada is the only G8 nation that has not publically acknowledged the need for some kind of private sector participation in the health care system (although it has allowed it to operate with impunity under the radar).

People like moore get a lot of credit for "stimulating debate". But in my view, what people like Moore really do is stifle and limit debate, because they are far to one dimensional in their thinking and solutions.

[B. Max]

No, Moore isn't a liar. One has to quit nitpicking with the terms being used and understand that by "free" he means we don't pay for healthcare as such any more than we pay for our children's education. A "free" education is guaranteed to all. But since we pay for all of these services with our taxes, it's referred to as "free" since we don't pay for the specific service. But nothing is life is free, which is why we pay taxes. And since we pay on a graduated tax scale, I don't see it breaking "millions of families" since they will no longer have to pay for health care or health insurance. If their insurance is now being provided by their employer, as I said, their employers can afford to pay them more once they no longer have to pay extravagant insurance premiums, so it should pretty much balance out in the end.

Completely ridiculous and it is not nitpicking. The free part is the hook, and it is a lie. So stop using the word free. It is anything but free. The majority of people will lose the coverage they have now and at the same time pay more for less because they will not be able to determine their level of coverage. Businesses will not pay anymore than they have to. They will simply deduct the amount of income tax they have to and wash their hands of it, and you will have no choice. All you will get is access to a waiting list behind those you are now forced to pay for, that are having an abortion or sex change operation. As I said before, it's not mathematical possible to cover another 40 or 50 million people, at the same level of coverage as one has now, and at the same price. It will not be free while millions will have to decide on a mortgage payment or having the food stolen off their table to pay for it. As it is now, one can decide not to have coverage or determine the level. That will all be lost to bigger goverenment and is most likely unconstitutional at the same time.

[SkyhookJackson]

No, Moore isn't a liar. One has to quit nitpicking with the terms being used and understand that by "free" he means we don't pay for healthcare as such any more than we pay for our children's education. A "free" education is guaranteed to all. But since we pay for all of these services with our taxes, it's referred to as "free" since we don't pay for the specific service. But nothing is life is free, which is why we pay taxes. And since we pay on a graduated tax scale, I don't see it breaking "millions of families" since they will no longer have to pay for health care or health insurance. If their insurance is now being provided by their employer, as I said, their employers can afford to pay them more once they no longer have to pay extravagant insurance premiums, so it should pretty much balance out in the end.

Completely ridiculous and it is not nitpicking. The free part is the hook, and it is a lie. So stop using the word free. It is anything but free. The majority of people will lose the coverage they have now and at the same time pay more for less because they will not be able to determine their level of coverage. Businesses will not pay anymore than they have to. They will simply deduct the amount of income tax they have to and wash their hands of it, and you will have no choice. All you will get is access to a waiting list behind those you are now forced to pay for, that are having an abortion or sex change operation. As I said before, it's not mathematical possible to cover another 40 or 50 million people, at the same level of coverage as one has now, and at the same price. It will not be free while millions will have to decide on a mortgage payment or having the food stolen off their table to pay for it. As it is now, one can decide not to have coverage or determine the level. That will all be lost to bigger goverenment and is most likely unconstitutional at the same time.

I'm astonished you can predict exactly what the universal health care program would be and exactly what it would cost, considering THERE IS NO PLAN FOR IT YET. When Michael Moore says "free," he means you do not receive the bill from health care providers. As another poster noted, sometimes he's his own worst enemy the way he words things. (Although I like his latest notion of calling it "Christianized" medicine, as in who would Jesus let lay in the street and die from lack of health care.) Of course it will be paid for in taxes or stopping the odd wars of choice. Read this article . . . please. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19886686/site/newsweek/

[Topaz]

Did any of you see Moore on "Hardball" on Tuesday? What he meant by free is, when you go to the doctor or to a hospital you don't have to pull out your credit card and pay for it on the spot because it will comes out of your taxes!! He also said the bad thing about the HMO's is they are in the business to make money and patient don't always get the BEST treatment for their problems because it would cost more for the HMO's!! When you think that Bush has spent 750 BILLION on HIS war, think about how many people could have been helped with that in healthcare.

[Alexandra]

Canada's Social healthcare:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...0724.pregnant24

From April 1 to June 30, B.C. paid more than $1 million to transfer nine expectant mothers to the United States. That included payment for nine deliveries, plus in-patient care for 10 babies.

The babies stayed in hospital for an average of 22 days, Ms. Plank of the B.C. Health Ministry said.

This year, 26 mothers from B.C. have been sent to three hospitals in Washington State; nine patients remain there

today, according to Sarah Plank, spokeswoman for the B.C. Health Ministry.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The pregnant women with medical emergencies have been shipped across our border for years. Nothing new here. It is never, ever, made public though that B.C. does not have the facilities to care for these women or their kids. B.C.'s 2006 budget allocated (and spent) over 47% of it's total public spending on healthcare. This year it will probably be 50% of public spending. Well, damn. There goes all of that 'green' spending on rapid transit and wind farms!

In B.C. in the past month 4 people received joint replacements at the new Skagit hospital in Bellingham, WA, a half hour from Vancouver. They had been on a waiting list. Of course if they had been covered by Worker's Compensation or members of the B.C. Lions or Vancouver Canucks they would have gone straight to the head of the line and had surgery within a day or two.

That large mountain of hot air Moore is obviously totally uninformed about Canada and it's pathetic nationalized health care nightmare.

`

[Riverwind]

The pregnant women with medical emergencies have been shipped across our border for years. Nothing new here. It is never, ever, made public though that B.C. does not have the facilities to care for these women or their kids.

You seem to forget the note that these women still got the care they expected paid for by the government. Moore has never advocated that the government take over the hospitals like they have in Canada. Moore advocates government insurance where the government pays the health care providers selected by the patient. The US already has a system like this called Medicare - if it is good enough for US seniors it should be good enough for all Americans.

[SkyhookJackson]

Canada's Social healthcare:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...0724.pregnant24

From April 1 to June 30, B.C. paid more than $1 million to transfer nine expectant mothers to the United States. That included payment for nine deliveries, plus in-patient care for 10 babies.

The babies stayed in hospital for an average of 22 days, Ms. Plank of the B.C. Health Ministry said.

This year, 26 mothers from B.C. have been sent to three hospitals in Washington State; nine patients remain there

today, according to Sarah Plank, spokeswoman for the B.C. Health Ministry.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The pregnant women with medical emergencies have been shipped across our border for years. Nothing new here. It is never, ever, made public though that B.C. does not have the facilities to care for these women or their kids. B.C.'s 2006 budget allocated (and spent) over 47% of it's total public spending on healthcare. This year it will probably be 50% of public spending. Well, damn. There goes all of that 'green' spending on rapid transit and wind farms!

In B.C. in the past month 4 people received joint replacements at the new Skagit hospital in Bellingham, WA, a half hour from Vancouver. They had been on a waiting list. Of course if they had been covered by Worker's Compensation or members of the B.C. Lions or Vancouver Canucks they would have gone straight to the head of the line and had surgery within a day or two.

That large mountain of hot air Moore is obviously totally uninformed about Canada and it's pathetic nationalized health care nightmare.

`

You Canadians are smart. Instead of investing a fortune in infrastructure and staff, you outsource some of your procedures to that stupid country south of you where every hospital from here to East Overshoe has an MRI machine, CT scanner and the capabilities to do the most complicated of procedures. It's that overbuilding (in the name of making the almighty dollar) that has left 47 million out in the cold. If it continues, as many would like, it is estimated to be 56 million without health care within a decade. Triage is not a four letter word. My scraped knee doesn't need immediate treatment when another guy's leg is dangling from a tendon. There are so many good things about the Canadian system as well as the not-so-good things that can be fixed. Just imagine if Canada was like the United States. You call the doctor's office for an emergency appointment and you get in (remember - no long waits in the U.S.). They discover, after you arrive and sit in the waiting room for 2 hours (oops, sorry, and that's a conservative estimate for the time spent reading People Magazine while watching people vomit), that you are uninsured. The doctor, as a gesture of compassion, sees you anyway for 5 minutes, verifies you're not at death's door, charges you $75 and sends you on your way. Good luck uninsured person. Believe me . . . I'm not making that up. The only untruth in the story is getting in for an emergency visit immediately.

[bush_cheney2004]

You Canadians are smart. Instead of investing a fortune in infrastructure and staff, you outsource some of your procedures to that stupid country south of you where every hospital from here to East Overshoe has an MRI machine, CT scanner and the capabilities to do the most complicated of procedures. It's that overbuilding (in the name of making the almighty dollar) that has left 47 million out in the cold...

Nah...many of them would still be "out in the cold"....too rich to qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP, and too "disadvantaged" to figure out the system like the rest of the American employees and capitalists. Those who rely soley on government get exactly what government provides, and sometimes that is nothing.

The sign on the wall said "Payment is due when services are rendered."....mama always paid in cash.

[Alexandra]

There are so many good things about the Canadian system as well as the not-so-good things that can be fixed.

Right. One of the good things about B.C.'s medical system right now is: If one is unfortunate enough to break any bone in any part of one's bod. don't even think of rushing off to St. Paul's emerg.

All of the bone docs. are on strike.

The docs. employer, the British Columbia Government, has not acceded to whatever the docs. demands were. Obviously.

Break a leg? Let's see. Which emerg. could I hobble off to. Which orthopaedic surgeons at which hospital are not on strike this month?

It's about that time for the Nurses' to strike and then the hospital workers refuse to cross the picket lines and on and on.

If the 'not-so-good things' could be fixed about the B.C. (Canadian) medical systems why then after so many years and years has it not been fixed?

This bitching and moaning is typical of any conversation between B.C.'ers about B.C.'s broken health care system. Americans who come over to the opera or to shop or whatever and have an accident or illness soon learn how wonderful our medical system is and just how costly it is for a non-resident.

`

[B. Max]

They discover, after you arrive and sit in the waiting room for 2 hours (oops, sorry, and that's a conservative estimate for the time spent reading People Magazine while watching people vomit), that you are uninsured.

Two hours is that all. Here people know going in that they have no insurance, and the government has your money.

[SkyhookJackson]

They discover, after you arrive and sit in the waiting room for 2 hours (oops, sorry, and that's a conservative estimate for the time spent reading People Magazine while watching people vomit), that you are uninsured.

Two hours is that all. Here people know going in that they have no insurance, and the government has your money.

The difference being, of course, you folks eventually get treatment. In the U.S., no cash = no treatment. True, if you turn up at the ER with a broken leg they'll fix it, but if you can't pay and don't qualify for any sort of program for the poor (and you have to be really, really poor), they'll take everything you own, garnish your wages and drain any bank account if you're lucky enough to have one. So, yes, you can obtain basic, absolutely necessary, treatment in our for-profit health care system. You can't turn up sans insurance and get perks such as chemotherapy, a kidney transplant and multitudes of other procedures that will allow you to live a normal life span. And, then there's the down side of having had your home taken away and finding a nice refrigerator box to live in on the sidewalk. Does that happen much in Canada? Do you have many bankruptcies over health care bills?

[bush_cheney2004]

... So, yes, you can obtain basic, absolutely necessary, treatment in our for-profit health care system. You can't turn up sans insurance and get perks such as chemotherapy, a kidney transplant and multitudes of other procedures that will allow you to live a normal life span. And, then there's the down side of having had your home taken away and finding a nice refrigerator box to live in on the sidewalk.

Then I guess "you" gonna die, eh? Uninsured Americans are just dropping dead like flies! I would think that keeping the home would be a distant concern.

Here's a nice "kidney" story from Canada:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/03/22/...suit050322.html